Photo Source: CND Website


On February 17, 2012, I did a blog post regarding gel manicures that I saw in the March 2012 issue of Good Housekeeping Magazine (GHK).  The article GHK wrote accused several gel manicure brands of being harmful.  One of those brands was CND.  A representative from CND contacted me with information to share some scientific-based facts with you regarding their product.  I’m happy this was done because I love my gel mani’s!  I wonder why GHK would write such an article without knowing the facts first or really dong research?  That article could have cost many people their means of making money, especially if their clients read it and became worked.  I love that CND has come forward to set the record straight.

CND Wants you to Know

– Methacrylates have been safely used in nail products for decades. The Cosmetics Ingredient Review has determined Methacrylates safe as used.

– As of August 2011, CND Shellac does not contain the chemical Methyl Pyrrolidone (n-MP).

Prior to that, several original CND Shellac color formulations used a raw material that contained trace amounts of n-MP in the solvent. The amount of n-MP in the final formula was below 0.1%, well within safe harbor limits of California’s Prop 65.

– The UV light present in the CND UV Lamp has been proven safe to use. Various studies, including one done by Rapid Precision Testing Laboratories, have compared the CND UV Lamp to natural sunlight and various indoor tanning lamps on the market. The tests have confirmed that the bulbs used in CND’s UV Nail Lamp are among the safest in use today. Getting regular UV manicures is equivalent to spending an extra 1-2 minutes in daylight.

– Acetone, which is used to remove CND Shellac, is used in almost all polish removers. Acetone can cause temporary dryness; however, acetone substitutes are less effective and equally as drying. Lightweight oils can be used to offset the temporary dryness.

– CND Shellac is a professional product and should only be used by licensed, trained nail professionals.

– Safety is CND’s top priority and we take tremendous concern with the article in the March issue of Good Housekeeping. It is very misleading. We took immediate steps to clarify the facts with the Good Housekeeping Institute (GHI). We met with the head of the institute, two chemists and two research directors to present accurate information and independent study results.  GHI listened, is currently evaluating the information and conducting additional research.  The staff of our lab is at GHI’s disposal. We are also collaborating with the Nail Manufacturers’ Safety Council to ensure that correct and accurate information is available. What is most important to know is that UV manicures are not dangerous. CND Shellac products have been thoroughly researched and tested.  The only risk of possible nail damage would be from improper application or removal by an untrained nail professional or woman at home.


Facts on the Safety of UV Lamps: 

7 Comments on CND Provides Scientific-based Facts for their Gel Manicures in Response to the GHK Article

  1. Kim, Again you are impressing me with your professionalism….. You addressed information you saw in print but did not claim it to be fact. You informed your followers and sought additional information. Then you printed that facts when you received them…
    Some tend to spread things just for hype… I believe you want to inform…..
    As A Professional in the Nail Industry I want to thank you for that.
    Lydian Flash Master Nail Technician

    • Hi,

      Thanks for coming to my blog and commenting. Thanks for the compliment? (Not sure if it's sarcasm) My intent is to never spread information for hype. The purpose of my blog, now and forever is to inform my readers and come to their own conclusion about a product or service. It's their lives. Also, I am not a nail tech by trade or work anywhere in the nail industry so I can't come to a valid conclusion about things that surround nail issues. The only thing I can do is speak on my personal experiences, which I do here. I wish your nail tech "friends" were as level-headed as you are.

      Again, thank you

  2. This is the article you should have written from the beginning, rather than just blindly repeating what GHK said.

    Remember that what you write has an impact (as well it should). How would you like it if some wrote that Kim Porter, make-up artist uses dangerous chemicals on her clients, without talking to you first? Especially if it were false info?

    I am glad that you did your homework and printed both sides to this. Perhaps GHK will follow suit, with an apology.

  3. hmm – what about BHA – the ariticle said Shellac had BHA in it right? That is the cancer causing agent to be concerned about.

  4. 1) It may not now, but GHK was not entirely wrong, because, until mid-2011, some CND Shellac products DID contain Methyl Pyrrolidone.
    2) Acetone is an ingredient in many nail polish removers, but most store brands have a non-acetone version of the remover in a nod to the fact that it's not skin-friendly, and none of them are pure acetone, which is what is used to remove CND Shellac. Moreover, the CND remover pads are very broad, and cover far more than your fingernail, so you're definitely going to get acetone on your skin, especially when the tech twists the pad to coax the polish off. I have seen somewhere that there is some kind of oil that is supposed to be part of the CND Shellac manicure/pedicure but I have had this process done everywhere from Bliss to the high-end salon in my neighborhood and nobody uses it.
    3) The "study" that allegedly disproves the danger of UV lighting is not a study and doesn't do so. First of all, it was conducted by interested parties: Doug Schoon of CND; Paul Bryson of OPI, and Jim McConnell of McConnell Labs, which makes nail and manicure/pedicure products. Second, of the three, only Bryson has a Ph.D. in Chemistry; Bryson has a Masters in it and McConnell doesn't have a graduate degree at all, which means that he's a college senior in terms of educational qualifications. Third, the "study" itself is a four-page essay that involved one test and makes a lot of broad, sweeping statements about how a real scientific paper questioning the safety of UV lighting is "wrong" but doesn't get all that specific. If a senior at my Atlanta day school had tried to present this as their final project, they would have gotten laughed out of Chemistry and gotten an "F."

    In short, I wouldn't be too rough on yourself or on Good Housekeeping, and I definitely wouldn't start defending CND. You offered the whole story as you know it and provided both viewpoints; let consumers educate themselves and make up their minds. Keep up the good work on your blog!

    • Thank you. I had to block comments on the other posts because I started getting some crazy responses from Doug Schoon’s people/ followers.

      I agree, people can and should use the information to come to their own decision about whether or not CND Shellac or similar products are for them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.